EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. NLRC and ELEAZAR S.

GRAN

G.R. No. 145587 ; October 26, 2007

FACTS:

EDI is a corporation engaged in recruitment and placement of OFWs. ESI is another recruitment agency
which collaborated with EDI to process the documentation and deployment of Gran to Saudi Arabia.

Gran was an OFW recruited by EDI, and deployed by ESI to work for Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est.
(OAB), in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

It appears that OAB asked EDI of qualified applicants for the position of "Computer Specialist." OAB
informed EDI that, from the applicants' curricula vitae, it selected Gran for the position. The faxed letter
also stated that if Gran agrees to the terms and conditions of employment contained in it, one of which
was a monthly salary of SR (Saudi Riyal) 2,250.00 (USD 600.00).

After accepting OAB's offer of employment, Gran signed an employment contract that granted him a
monthly salary of USD 850.00 for a period of two years.

Upon arrival in Riyadh, Gran questioned the discrepancy in his monthly salary—his employment contract
stated USD 850.00; while his Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Information Sheet
indicated USD 600.00 only. However, through the assistance of the EDI office in Riyadh, OAB agreed to
pay Gran USD 850.00 a month.

After Gran had been working for about five months for OAB, his employment was terminated because of
non-compliance to contract requirements by the recruitment agency primarily on salary and contract
duration.

Gran received from OAB the total amount of SR 2,948.00 representing his final pay, and on the same
day, he executed a Declaration releasing OAB from any financial obligation or otherwise, towards him.

After his arrival in the Philippines, Gran instituted a complaint for underpayment of wages/salaries and
illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was neither underpayment nor illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter reasoned that there was no underpayment of salaries since according to the POEA-
Overseas Contract Worker (OCW) Information Sheet, Gran's monthly salary was USD 600.00.

The NLRC found that Gran did not commit any act that constituted a legal ground for dismissal. Thus, the
NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's Decision.

Gran then filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment on March 29, 1999 with the NLRC and petitioner
receiving a copy of this motion on the same date.

The CA subsequently ruled on the procedural and substantive issues of EDI's petition.

The court held that petitioner EDI failed to prove that private respondent was terminated for a valid
cause and in accordance with due process; and that Gran's Declaration releasing OAB from any
monetary obligation had no force and effect. The appellate court ratiocinated that EDI had the burden
of proving Gran's incompetence; however, other than the termination letter, no evidence was presented
to show how and why Gran was considered to be incompetent.

ISSUES:

Whether EDI has established by way of substantial evidence that gran's termination was justifiable by
reason of incompetence and by reason of insubordination and disobedience.

RULING:

In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws
will govern matters not provided for in the contract. Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci
intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating to the
termination of the employment of Gran.

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the
burden of proving the foreign law.

Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the
International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play.
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours. 

Petitioner EDI claims that it had proven that Gran was legally dismissed due to incompetence and
insubordination or disobedience.

This claim has no merit.

In illegal dismissal cases, it has been established by Philippine law and jurisprudence that the employer
should prove that the dismissal of employees or personnel is legal and just.

In the instant case, petitioner claims that private respondent Gran was validly dismissed for just cause,
due to incompetence and insubordination or disobedience.

Petitioner claims that Gran was incompetent for the Computer Specialist position because he had
"insufficient knowledge in programming and zero knowledge of [the] ACAD system."

Petitioner's imputation of incompetence on private respondent due to his "insufficient knowledge in

programming and zero knowledge of the ACAD system" without any other evidence, cannot be given
credence.

An allegation of incompetence should have a factual foundation. Incompetence may be shown by

weighing it against a standard, benchmark, or criterion. However, EDI failed to establish any such bases
to show how petitioner found Gran incompetent.

Even though EDI and/or ESI were merely the local employment or recruitment agencies and not the
foreign employer, they should have adduced additional evidence to convincingly show that Gran's
employment was validly and legally terminated. The burden devolves not only upon the foreign-based
employer but also on the employment or recruitment agency for the latter is not only an agent of the
former, but is also solidarily liable with the foreign principal for any claims or liabilities arising from the
dismissal of the worker.